Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/28948
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcGilchrist, Pen
dc.contributor.authorPolkinghorne, R Jen
dc.contributor.authorBall, A Jen
dc.contributor.authorThompson, J Men
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-29T23:05:49Z-
dc.date.available2020-06-29T23:05:49Z-
dc.date.issued2019-08-
dc.identifier.citationAnimal, 13(8), p. 1750-1757en
dc.identifier.issn1751-732Xen
dc.identifier.issn1751-7311en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/28948-
dc.description.abstractA simple index that reflects the potential eating quality of beef carcasses is very important for producer feedback. The Meat Standards Australia (MSA) Index reflects variation in carcass quality due to factors that are influenced by producers (hot carcass weight, rib fat depth, hump height, marbling and ossification scores along with milk fed veal category, direct or saleyard consignment, hormonal growth promotant status and sex). In addition, processor impacts on meat quality are standardised so that the MSA Index could be compared across time, breed and geographical regions. Hence, the MSA Index was calculated using achilles hung carcasses, aged for 5 days postmortem. Muscle pH can be impacted by production, transport, lairage or processing factors, hence the MSA Index assumes a constant pH of 5.6 and loin temperature of 7°C for all carcasses. To quantify the cut weight distribution of the 39 MSA cuts in the carcass, 40 Angus steers were sourced from the low (n = 13), high (n = 15) and myostatin (n = 12) muscling selection lines. The left side of each carcass was processed down to the 39 trimmed MSA cuts. There was no difference in MSA cut distribution between the low and high muscling lines (P > 0.05), although there were differences with nine cuts from the myostatin line (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the MSA Index calculated using actual muscle percentages and using the average from the low and high muscling lines (R² = 0.99). Different cooking methods impacted via a constant offset between eating quality and carcass input traits (R² = 1). The MSA Index calculated for the four most commercially important cuts was highly related to the index calculated using all 39 MSA cuts (R² = 0.98), whilst the accuracy was lower for an index calculated using the striploin (R² = 0.82). Therefore, the MSA Index was calculated as the sum of the 39 eating quality scores predicted at 5 days ageing, based on their most common cooking method, weighted by the proportions of the individual cut relative to total weight of all cuts. The MSA Index provides producers with a tool to assess the impact of management and genetic changes on the predicted eating quality of the carcass. The MSA Index could also be utilised for benchmarking and to track eating quality trends at farm, supply chain, regional, state or national levels.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.relation.ispartofAnimalen
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/*
dc.titleThe Meat Standards Australia Index indicates beef carcass qualityen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S1751731118003713en
dc.identifier.pmid30724139en
dcterms.accessRightsUNE Greenen
local.contributor.firstnamePen
local.contributor.firstnameR Jen
local.contributor.firstnameA Jen
local.contributor.firstnameJ Men
local.subject.for2008070203 Animal Managementen
local.subject.seo2008830599 Primary Animal Products not elsewhere classifieden
local.subject.seo2008830301 Beef Cattleen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.emailpmcgilc2@une.edu.auen
local.profile.emailrpolkin2@une.edu.auen
local.profile.emailjthompso@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen
local.format.startpage1750en
local.format.endpage1757en
local.identifier.scopusid85061227088en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume13en
local.identifier.issue8en
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnameMcGilchristen
local.contributor.lastnamePolkinghorneen
local.contributor.lastnameBallen
local.contributor.lastnameThompsonen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:pmcgilc2en
dc.identifier.staffune-id:rpolkin2en
dc.identifier.staffune-id:jthompsoen
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-3265-1134en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1959.11/28948en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleThe Meat Standards Australia Index indicates beef carcass qualityen
local.relation.fundingsourcenoteMeat and Livestock Australia (Project No.B.SBP.0115)en
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorMcGilchrist, Pen
local.search.authorPolkinghorne, R Jen
local.search.authorBall, A Jen
local.search.authorThompson, J Men
local.open.fileurlhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/5e87d096-3384-4ff2-b7b6-561cb9dc2817en
local.uneassociationYesen
local.atsiresearchNoen
local.sensitive.culturalNoen
local.identifier.wosid000475936900024en
local.year.published2019en
local.fileurl.openhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/5e87d096-3384-4ff2-b7b6-561cb9dc2817en
local.fileurl.openpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/5e87d096-3384-4ff2-b7b6-561cb9dc2817en
local.subject.for2020300302 Animal managementen
local.subject.seo2020100401 Beef cattleen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Environmental and Rural Science
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/TheMeatMcGilchristPolkinghorneThompson2019JournalArticle.pdfPublished version209 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

22
checked on Apr 27, 2024

Page view(s)

1,200
checked on Apr 28, 2024

Download(s)

28
checked on Apr 28, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons